Arguments about ideas are the bread and butter of the academic, journalism and think tank worlds. That is as it should be. Honest intellectual debate benefits any society where its practice is allowed. The key element is honesty.

Today, someone is always looking to take out the fastest gun, and in the battles over the hearts and minds of the public many weapons are brought to bear. Unfortunately, and too often, among the artillery deployed by both sides in an argument are rhetorical deception, misleading statistics and an air of authority, which can immediately bury facts in the Boot Hill of honest debate.

Seldom held accountable for the violence brought to bear on the verifiable when their ideas lead to long-lasting negative effects, many of these intellectual gunslingers head into battle confident that their wits will save the world from another perceived plight.

Fortunately, Thomas Sowell is one of the fastest intellectual guns in the proverbial corral. His latest, Intellectuals and Society, finds the erudite economist turning his guns on the so-called intellectuals who attempt and too often succeed in swaying public opinion and political policy where the arrogance of intellect too often is the smart bomb dropped squarely on empirical evidence.

Indeed, intellectual folly knows no ideological parameters. However, Sowell divides intellectuals into two classes, where ideological divides are readily identifiable. The first is comprised of those with a constrained, or tragic, view of the world. To a conservative sympathetic to writers such as Russell Kirk and T.S. Eliot, there is an understanding that humankind is fallen and that there can be no heaven on Earth. Eliot and Kirk held that a worldview is only viable inasmuch as it reflects what Edmund Burke called the moral imagination, which he defined as, “the power of ethical perception which strides beyond the barriers of private experience and events of the moment …”

Sowell, however, forgoes the transcendent definition in favor of a quotidian earthbound understanding:

In the tragic vision, social contrivances seek to restrict behavior that leads to unhappiness, even though these restrictions themselves cause a certain amount of unhappiness. It is a vision of trade-offs, rather than solutions, and a vision of wisdom distilled from the experiences of the many, rather than the brilliance of a few. … In the constrained vision, there are especially severe limits on how much any given individual can know and truly understand, which is why this vision puts such emphasis on systemic processes whose economic and social transactions draw upon the knowledge and experience of millions, past and present. (p. 78)

The other class of intellectual, according to Sowell, possesses an anointed vision, which is a belief that humanity is perfectible and the world is one large Petri dish where superior intellects can craft an earthly paradise through bold experiments:

[S]ocial contrivances are the root cause of human unhappiness and explain the fact that the world we see around us differs so greatly from the world we would like to see. In this vision, oppression, poverty, injustice and war are all products of existing institutions—problems whose solutions require changing these institutions, which in turn require changing the ideas behind those institutions. In short, the ills of society are seen as ultimately an intellectual and moral problem, for which intellectuals are especially equipped to provide answers, by virtue of their greater knowledge and insight, as well as their not having vested economic interests to bias them in favor of the existing order and still the voice of conscience. … This vision of society, in which there are many ‘problems’ to be ‘solved’ by applying the ideas of morally anointed intellectual elites is by no means the only vision, however much that vision may be prevalent among today’s intellectuals.(pp. 76, 77)

Sowell presents specific examples of the anointed urge throughout several chapters respectively dedicated to media and academia; economics; law; social planning; and war. His rogues’ gallery includes 20th century leaders and thinkers such as Woodrow Wilson, Bertrand Russell, Thomas Dewey, Neville Chamberlain, John Maynard Keynes and Rachel Carson. Wilson’s academic background is credited by Sowell as providing him with the intellectual arrogance to allow American shipping in German blockaded water, giving him an easy excuse to seek war against Germany when those ships inevitably were attacked. Russell, Dewey and Chamberlain are all taken to task for their ill-timed and irresolute pacifism at a time when stern diplomacy and a big stick approach would’ve yielded better results prior to World War II. The furor against the pesticide DDT caused by Carson’s research is credited by Sowell (and many others) as causing the subsequent deaths of millions from malaria and dengue fever.

Rather than engage in simple character assassination, however, Sowell gives his devils their respective dues. No one doubts, for instance, Carson’s correct conclusion that unchecked application of DDT was causing softening of shells for eagles and other raptors. What is questionable is the subsequent overstatement that all levels of pesticide had detrimental impacts on all wildlife. Likewise, Sowell praises the linguistic work of Noam Chomsky while lamenting Chomsky’s straying from the fields of language to the swamps of political debate where his ideas provide succor to other intellectual elites.

While characterizing the anointed as individuals besotted with their own intellect, Sowell argues that their ideas would not gain traction without the use of rhetorical parlor tricks. Here, Sowell shines as he offers his own “guide to talking to intellectuals.” Often the first shot over the bow of a constrained thinker’s argument is the anointed’s charge that it is “simplistic.” Sowell explains why this dismissal is more often than not dishonest as it expands the original “question to unanswerable dimensions” and derides “the now inadequate answer as simplistic.”

Sowell is perhaps more convincing when he identifies the demonization of opponents as the favorite rebuttal of the anointed. The refusal to accept the goodwill of one’s opponents – as a starting point for honest debate — is an all too common device employed by the anointed, according to Sowell and this writer’s personal experience. This often leads right away to personal attacks. From John Stuart Mills’ admonition of Conservatives as the Party of Stupid to pacifist J.B. Priestley’s assertion that the British public favored war only out of ennui and the desire for patriotic displays, Sowell portrays the ad hominem as a first line of attack.

Should insults fail, the assumption of the moral high ground is the second wave of attack: How can one defeat an opponent who presents him or herself as more compassionate toward fellow humans or presents themselves as more caring about the beauty of nature and the state of the environment? As Sowell aptly puts it:

While the conflicts between the tragic vision and the vision of the anointed can lead to innumerable arguments on a wide range of issues, these can also lead to presentations of views that take the outward form of an argument without the inner substance of facts or analysis – in other words, arguments without arguments.

Elsewhere, Sowell’s prodigious knowledge is brought to bear on his discussion of intellectual claims for rights where none exist, including the supposed “rights” to affordable health care, living wages and other social justice issues. In each instance, he concisely eviscerates the intellectual arguments for the necessity to enact change. And he does so in a fresh way, without a hint that he might be simply rehashing his weekly columns.

Sowell’s book is a handy compendium of point/counterpoints. For every John Dewey who claims, “Having the knowledge we may set hopefully at work upon a course of social invention and experimental engineering,” Sowell quotes the wisdom of a Friedrich Hayek:

Not all knowledge in this sense is part of our intellect, nor is our intellect the whole of our knowledge. Our habits and skills, our emotional attitudes, our tools, and our institutions—all are in this sense adaptations to past experience which have grown up by selective elimination of less suitable conduct. They are as much an indispensable foundation of successful action as is our conscious knowledge. (p. 14)

Intellectuals and Society is a great read for those who increasingly engage in debate on the polarizing issues of the day. Had Sowell not finished writing the book prior to the recent release of the Climategate emails, one can imagine the firepower he would’ve brought to bear on that topic. His defense of commonsense and empirical facts over intellectual arrogance and rhetorical sleight-of-hand should serve as a handbook for anyone interested in engaging in honest debate.

I can’t wait to read Sowell’s book, but I don’t think that pointing out the fallacies of the progressives will do much good. The constrained view of mankind is a traditional Christian viewpoint. Progressives have not conned anyone. As people abandoned traditional Christianity they naturally gravitated to the progressive, unconstrained view of mankind. They have rejected the unconstrained view because they have rejected traditional Christianity. There won’t be much change until there is some kind of revival of traditional Christianity.

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/?s=DDT Ed Darrell

Sowell is dead wrong about DDT. My experience with him over the past 30 years is he plays fast and loose with the facts, but the story of DDT is easy to learn — all he’d have to do is actually read Rachel Carson’s book.

Malaria death rates are lower now than they were at the height of DDT use.

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/?s=DDT Ed Darrell

Oh, and by the way: “What is questionable is the subsequent overstatement that all levels of pesticide had detrimental impacts on all wildlife.”

No, that’s correct. DDT biomagnifies. A tiny dose to mosquitoes works to a nearly fatal dose to predatory birds in the same ecosystem.

E. Weeks

As a young person in an extremely progressive city, I look forward to reading Sowell’s book precisely because he offers specific methods of arguing with and against progressives. My peers at work and in social settings have little experience with either rational argument or real conservatives, having been educated, for the most part, to fight the straw men of conservatism rather than reality. I find that, at least among my reasonable liberal friends, as long as there is still a chance for respectful discussion, even the more extreme liberals find these kinds of ideas intriguing and often unanswerable. I look forward to having more fodder for discussion.

Patrick

Sowell continues the critical wisdom of Socrates, who was convicted of blasphemy against the gods by the poets. Thus, it is no surprise that Sowell refers to the intellectual elites as The Anointed. One of oday’s false gods is the environment,

Eric Hoffer, author of The True Believer, observed that there is little or no difference between the radical Communist and the Catholic fundamentalist. It is the belief, the ideology or dogma, that gives reason for being to the True Believer. (Hoffer used to appear on CBS Evening News as the guest of commentator Eric Severeid. Can anyone believe CBS would bring itself to allow Sowell on the Evening News today? Or even have an )

Patrick

oops…laptop cursor pads are really inconvenientLY located. Would CBS/ABC/NBC allow a social critic such as Eric Severeid?

Bob McAlpine

In reply to Ed Darrell’s comments about DDT, I think Mr. Sowell has the facts just about right. At the time I agreed that DDT should be banned but during the last 20 years other data has been released about Miss Carsons experiments. It seems that Miss Carson was not completely open about her experiments, some of her findings were omitted from her published results. REGARDLESS I am pleased that DDT is now being produced again, in small quantities, specifically for malaria control.

Neal Lang

“Sowell is dead wrong about DDT. My experience with him over the past 30 years is he plays fast and loose with the facts, but the story of DDT is easy to learn — all he’d have to do is actually read Rachel Carson’s book.

“Malaria death rates are lower now than they were at the height of DDT use.”

Oh, really? Let’s just see – roll the tape!

“When it was first introduced in World War II, DDT was very effective in reducing malaria morbidity and mortality. The WHO’s anti-malaria campaign, which consisted mostly of spraying DDT, was initially very successful as well. For example, in Sri Lanka, the program reduced cases from about 3 million per year before spraying to just 29 in 1964. Thereafter the program was halted to save money, and malaria rebounded to 600,000 cases in 1968 and the first quarter of 1969.

“Today, DDT remains on the WHO’s list of insecticides recommended for IRS. Since the appointment of Arata Kochi as head of its anti-malaria division, WHO’s policy has shifted from recommending IRS only in areas of seasonal or episodic transmission of malaria, to also advocating it in areas of continuous, intense transmission.

“South Africa is one country that continues to use DDT under WHO guidelines. In 1996, the country switched to alternative insecticides and malaria incidence increased dramatically. Returning to DDT and introducing new drugs brought malaria back under control. According to DDT advocate Donald Roberts, malaria cases increased in South America after countries in that continent stopped using DDT. Research data shows a significantly strong negative relationship between DDT residual house sprayings and malaria rates. In a research from 1993 to 1995, Ecuador increased its use of DDT and resulted in a 61% reduction in malaria rates, while each of the other countries that gradually decreased its DDT use had large increase in malaria rates.”

It looks like you are actually the one who “plays fast and loose with the facts!”

Save the birds – let the people die!

Like most enviro fanatics you have the utmost respect for all species except mankind.

wallamaarif

Neal,

Ah yes, an unattributed quote (from Wikipedia, of all places) is always a valid response. I’m sure it’s only an accident that you failed to mention the section on human toxicity from the very page you quoted.

Congratulations, Neal, you’ve just demonstrated your own penchant for “playing fast and loose with the facts.” Just like Sowell has been doing for the 20 years I’ve been following him.

wallamaarif

“In each instance, he concisely eviscerates the intellectual arguments for the necessity to enact change. And he does so in a fresh way, without a hint that he might be simply rehashing his weekly columns.”

If his weekly columns weren’t routinely devoted to exactly these arguments, you might have a point. As for rehashing in general, this review centers on Sowell’s “conflict of visions” argument, which Sowell has been making continuously since at least 1987, when his book “A Conflict of Visions” was first published.

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com Ed Darrell

Mr. McAlpine, I would love it if you would cite any research which contradicts the research Carson cited. There is none. I love the smell of fiction in its creation.

WHO uses DDT under the guidelines Rachel Carson urged in 1962. If South Africa is having success using Carson’s methods, that’s a credit to Carson, not a slam against her.

Come on over to Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub, look up “DDT,” and get the facts.

Neal Lang

“Ah yes, an unattributed quote (from Wikipedia, of all places) is always a valid response. I’m sure it’s only an accident that you failed to mention the section on human toxicity from the very page you quoted.”

Toxicity? Compared to what? The demonstrated fatality of contracting malaria. You, my friend, support a “Culture of Death” were human life must be secondary to your myopic concept of “saving the planet.”

“Congratulations, Neal, you’ve just demonstrated your own penchant for ‘playing fast and loose with the facts.’ Just like Sowell has been doing for the 20 years I’ve been following him.”

The FACTS are that human beings are sacrificed to save a bird! The facts are that DDT saved human lives. The facts are that by not attacking the parasites that carry malaria that millions of people die anually. Those are the real deadly facts – I hope you can live with the blood on your hands!

Neal Lang

“If his weekly columns weren’t routinely devoted to exactly these arguments, you might have a point. As for rehashing in general, this review centers on Sowell’s ‘conflict of visions’ argument, which Sowell has been making continuously since at least 1987, when his book ‘A Conflict of Visions’ was first published.”

Your point exacty what? Consistency is somehow a sin and not a virture? Amazing rationale!

Neal Lang

“Mr. McAlpine, I would love it if you would cite any research which contradicts the research Carson cited. There is none. I love the smell of fiction in its creation.

“WHO uses DDT under the guidelines Rachel Carson urged in 1962. If South Africa is having success using Carson’s methods, that’s a credit to Carson, not a slam against her.

“Come on over to Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub, look up ‘DDT,’ and get the facts.”

These are the REAL FACTS:

I. Historical Background – Discovered by accident, DDT became one of the greatest public health tools of the 20th century. Overuse harmed its efficacy — and made it politically unpopular.

1. Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) was first synthesized, for no purpose, in 1874 by German chemist Othmar Zeidler. In 1939, Dr. Paul Müller independently produced DDT. Müller found that DDT quickly killed flies, aphids, mosquitoes, walking sticks and Colorado potato beetles. Müller and the Geigy corporation patented DDT in Switzerland (1940), England (1942) and U.S. (1943).

2. The first large-scale use of DDT occurred in 1943 when 500 gallons of DDT were produced by Merck & Company and delivered to Italy to help squelch a rapidly spreading epidemic of louse-borne typhus. Later in 1943, the U.S. Army issued small tin boxes of 10 percent DDT dust to its soldiers around the world who used it to kill body lice, head lice and crab lice.

3. Müller won the Nobel Prize in 1948 for his work on DDT.

4. Peak usage occurred in 1962, when 80 million kilograms of DDT were used and 82 million kilograms produced.

5. “In May 1955 the Eighth World Health Assembly adopted a Global Malaria Eradication Campaign based on the widespread use of DDT against mosquitos and of antimalarial drugs to treat malaria and to eliminate the parasite in humans. As a result of the Campaign, malaria was eradicated by 1967 from all developed countries where the disease was endemic and large areas of tropical Asia and Latin America were freed from the risk of infection. The Malaria Eradication Campaign was only launched in three countries of tropical Africa since it was not considered feasible in the others. Despite these achievements, improvements in the malaria situation could not be maintained indefinitely by time-limited, highly prescriptive and centralized programmes.” [Bull World Health Organ 1998;76(1):11-6]

6. “To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT… In little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths, due to malaria, that otherwise would have been inevitable.” National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Research in the Life Sciences of the Committee on Science and Public Policy. 1970. The Life Sciences; Recent Progress and Application to Human Affairs; The World of Biological Research; Requirements for the Future.]

7. It is believed that [malaria] afflicts between 300 and 500 million every year, causing up to 2.7 million deaths, mainly among children under five years. [Africa News, January 27, 1999] (Anecdotal: I had a friend and colleague die in 1989 when he contracted malaria in Nigeria and was treated in Florida by doctors who never saw a malaria victim and thought he had AIDES. Which how effective DDT had been in eliminated this surge on mankind in the US.)

8. Some mosquitoes became “resistant” to DDT. “There is persuasive evidence that antimalarial operations did not produce mosquito resistance to DDT. That crime, and in a very real sense it was a crime, can be laid to the intemperate and inappropriate use of DDT by farmers, espeially cotton growers. They used the insecticide at levels that would accelerate, if not actually induce, the selection of a resistant population of mosquitoes.” [Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]

9. “Resistance” may be a misleading term when discussing DDT and mosquitoes. While some mosquitoes develop biochemical/physiological mechanisms of resistance to the chemical, DDT also can provoke strong avoidance behavior in some mosquitoes so they spend less time in areas where DDT has been applied — this still reduces mosquito-human contact. “This avoidance behavior, exhibited when malaria vectors avoid insecticides by not entering or by rapidly exiting sprayed houses, should raise serious questions about the overall value of current physiological and biochemical resistance tests. The continued efficacy of DDT in Africa, India, Brazil, and Mexico, where 69% of all reported cases of malaria occur and where vectors are physiologically resistant to DDT (excluding Brazil), serves as one indicator that repellency is very important in preventing indoor transmission of malaria.” [See, e.g., J Am Mosq Control Assoc 1998 Dec;14(4):410-20; and Am J Trop Med Hyg 1994;50(6 Suppl):21-34]

Neal Lang

MORE FACTS

II. Advocacy against DDT – DDT was demagogued out of use.

1. Rachel Carson sounded the initial alarm against DDT, but represented the science of DDT erroneously in her 1962 book Silent Spring. Carson wrote “Dr. DeWitt’s now classic experiments [on quail and pheasants] have now established the fact that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction. Quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched.” DeWitt’s 1956 article (in Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry) actually yielded a very different conclusion. Quail were fed 200 parts per million of DDT in all of their food throughout the breeding season. DeWitt reports that 80% of their eggs hatched, compared with the “control”” birds which hatched 83.9% of their eggs. Carson also omitted mention of DeWitt’s report that “control” pheasants hatched only 57 percent of their eggs, while those that were fed high levels of DDT in all of their food for an entire year hatched more than 80% of their eggs.

2. Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world population. In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, “Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing.” [Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]

3. The environmental movement used DDT as a means to increase their power. Charles Wurster, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, commented, “If the environmentalists win on DDT, they will achieve a level of authority they have never had before.. In a sense, much more is at stake than DDT.” [Seattle Times, October 5, 1969]

4. Science journals were biased against DDT. Philip Abelson, editor of Science informed Dr. Thomas Jukes that Science would never publish any article on DDT that was not antagonistic.

5. William Ruckelshaus, the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency who made the ultimate decision to ban DDT in 1972, was a member of the Environmental Defense Fund. Ruckelshaus solicited donations for EDF on his personal stationery that read “EDF’s scientists blew the whistle on DDT by showing it to be a cancer hazard, and three years later, when the dust had cleared, EDF had won.”

6. But as an assistant attorney general, William Ruckelshaus stated on August 31, 1970 in a U.S. Court of Appeals that “DDT has an amazing an exemplary record of safe use, does not cause a toxic response in man or other animals, and is not harmful. Carcinogenic claims regarding DDT are unproven speculation.” But in a May 2, 1971 address to the Audubon Society, Ruckelshaus stated, “As a member of the Society, myself, I was highly suspicious of this compound, to put it mildly. But I was compelled by the facts to temper my emotions … because the best scientific evidence available did not warrant such a precipitate action. However, we in the EPA have streamlined our administrative procedures so we can now suspend registration of DDT and the other persistent pesticides at any time during the period of review.” Ruckelshaus later explained his ambivalence by stating that as assistant attorney general he was an advocate for the government, but as head of the EPA he was “a maker of policy.” [Barrons, 10 November 1975]

7. Environmental activists planned to defame scientists who defended DDT. In an uncontradicted deposition in a federal lawsuit, Victor Yannacone, a founder of the Environmental Defense Fund, testified that he attended a meeting in which Roland Clement of the Audubon Society and officials of the Environmental Defense Fund decided that University of California-Berkeley professor and DDT-supporter Thomas H. Jukes was to be muzzled by attacking his credibility. [21st Century, Spring 1992]

Neal Lang

STILL MORE FACTS

III. EPA hearings – DDT was banned by an EPA administrator who ignored the decision of his own administrative law judge.

1. Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge occurred during 1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man… DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man… The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.” [Sweeney, EM. 1972. EPA Hearing Examiner’s recommendations and findings concerning DDT hearings, April 25, 1972 (40 CFR 164.32, 113 pages). Summarized in Barrons (May 1, 1972) and Oregonian (April 26, 1972)]

2. Overruling the EPA hearing examiner, EPA administrator Ruckelshaus banned DDT in 1972. Ruckelshaus never attended a single hour of the seven months of EPA hearings on DDT. Ruckelshaus’ aides reported he did not even read the transcript of the EPA hearings on DDT. [Santa Ana Register, April 25, 1972]

3. After reversing the EPA hearing examiner’s decision, Ruckelshaus refused to release materials upon which his ban was based. Ruckelshaus rebuffed USDA efforts to obtain those materials through the Freedom of Information Act, claiming that they were just “internal memos.” Scientists were therefore prevented from refuting the false allegations in the Ruckelshaus’ “Opinion and Order on DDT.”

Neal Lang

STILL MORE FACTS IV. Human exposure – Actual human exposures have always been far lower than the “acceptable” level.

1. Human ingestion of DDT was estimated to average about 0.0026 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg/day) about 0.18 milligrams per day. [Hayes, W. 1956. J Amer Medical Assn, Oct. 1956]

2. In 1967, the daily average intake of DDT by 20 men with high occupational exposure was estimated to be 17.5 to 18 mg/man per day, as compared with an average of 0.04 mg/man per day for the general population. [IARC V.5, 1974].

3. Dr. Alice Ottoboni, toxicologist for the state of California, estimated that the average American ingests between 0.0006 mg/kg/day and 0.0001 mg/kg/day of DDT. [Ottoboni, A. et al. California’s Health, August 1969 & May 1972]

4. “In the United States, the average amount of DDT and DDE eaten daily in food in 1981 was 2.24 micrograms per day (ug/day) (0.000032 mg/kg/day), with root and leafy vegetables containing the highest amount. Meat, fish, and poultry also contain very low levels of these compounds.” [Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1989.Public Health Statement: DDT, DDE, and DDD]

5. The World Health Organization set an acceptable daily intake of DDT for humans at 0.01 mg/kg/day.

6. “Air samples in the United States have shown levels of DDT ranging from 0.00001 to 1.56 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m3), depending on the location and year of sampling. Most reported samples were collected in the mid 1970s, and present levels are expected to be much lower. DDT and DDE have been reported in surface waters at levels of 0.001 micrograms per liter (ug/L), while DDD generally is not found in surface water. National soil testing programs in the early 1970s have reported levels in soil ranging from 0.18 to 5.86 parts per million (ppm).” [Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1989.Public Health Statement: DDT, DDE, and DDD]

Neal Lang

STILL MORE FACT

V. Cancer – DDT was alleged to be a liver carcinogen in Silent Spring and a breast carcinogen in Our Stolen Future.

1. Feeding primates more than 33,000 times the average daily human exposure to DDT (as estimated in 1969 and 1972) was “inconclusive with respect to a carcinogenic effect of DDT in nonhuman primates.” [J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1999;125(3-4):219-25]

2. A nested case-control study was conducted to examine the association between serum concentrations of DDE and PCBs and the development of breast cancer up to 20 years later. Cases (n = 346) and controls (n = 346) were selected from cohorts of women who donated blood in 1974, 1989, or both, and were matched on age, race, menopausal status, and month and year of blood donation. “Even after 20 years of follow-up, exposure to relatively high concentrations of DDE or PCBs showed no evidence of contributing to an increased risk of breast cancer.” [Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999 Jun;8(6):525-32]

3. To prospectively evaluate relationships of organochlorine pesticides and PCBs with breast cancer, a case-control study nested in a cohort using the Columbia, Missouri Breast Cancer Serum Bank. Women donated blood in 1977- 87, and during up to 9.5 years follow-up, 105 donors who met the inclusion criteria for the current study were diagnosed with breast cancer. For each case, two controls matched on age and date of blood collection were selected. Five DDT analogs, 13 other organochlorine pesticides, and 27 PCBs were measured in serum. Results of this study do not support a role for organochlorine pesticides and PCBs in breast cancer etiology. [Cancer Causes Control 1999 Feb;10(1):1-11]

4. A pooled analysis examined whether exposure to DDT was associated with the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma among male farmers. Data from three case-control studies from four midwestern states in the United States (Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas) were pooled to carry out analyses of 993 cases and 2918 controls. No strong consistent evidence was found for an association between exposure to DDT and risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. [Occup Environ Med 1998 Aug;55(8):522-7]

5. “We measured plasma levels of DDE and PCBs prospectively among 240 women who gave a blood sample in 1989 or 1990 and who were subsequently given a diagnosis of breast cancer before June 1, 1992. We compared these levels with those measured in matched control women in whom breast cancer did not develop. Data on DDE were available for 236 pairs, and data on PCBs were available for 230 pairs. Our data do not support the hypothesis that exposure to [DDT] and PCBs increases the risk of breast cancer.” [N Engl J Med 1997;337:1253-8]

6. “… weakly estrogenic organochlorine compounds such as PCBs, DDT, and DDE are not a cause of breast cancer.” [http://www.nejm.org/content/1997/0337/0018/1303.asp]

7. To examine any possible links between exposure to DDE, the persistent metabolite of the pesticide dicophane (DDT), and breast cancer, 265 postmenopausal women with breast cancer and 341 controls matched for age and center were studied. Women with breast cancer had adipose DDE concentrations 9.2% lower than control women. No increased risk of breast cancer was found at higher concentrations. The odds ratio of breast cancer, adjusted for age and center, for the highest versus the lowest fourth of DDE distribution was 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.21) and decreased to 0.48 (0.25 to 0.95; P for trend = 0.02) after adjustment for body mass index, age at first birth, and current alcohol drinking. Adjustment for other risk factors did not materially affect these estimates. This study does not support the hypothesis that DDE increases risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women in Europe. [BMJ 1997 Jul 12;315(7100):81-5]

8. No correlation at the population level can be demonstrated between exposures to DDT and the incidence of cancer at any site. It is concluded that DDT has had no significant impact on human cancer patterns and is unlikely to be an important carcinogen for man at previous exposure levels, within the statistical limitations of the data. [IARC Sci Publ 1985;(65):107-17]

9. Syrian golden hamsters were fed for their lifespan a diet containing 0, 125, 250 and 500 parts per million (ppm) of DDT. The incidence of tumor bearing animals was 13% among control females and ranged between 11-20% in treated females. In control males 8% had tumors. The incidence of tumor bearing animals among treated males ranged between 17-28%. [Tumori 1982 Feb 28;68(1):5-10]

10. None of 35 workers heavily exposed to DDT (600 times the average U.S. exposure for 9 to 19 years) developed cancer. [Laws, ER. 1967. Arch Env Health 15:766-775]

11. Men who voluntarily ingested 35 mgs of DDT daily for nearly two years were carefully examined for years and “developed no adverse effects.” [Hayes, W. 1956. JAMA 162:890-897]

3. Laboratory egg shell thinning required massive doses of DDE far in excess of anything expected in nature, and massive laboratory doses produce much less thinning than is seen in many of the thin-shelled eggs collected in the wild. [Hazeltine, WE. 1974. Statement and affidavit, EPA Hearings on Tussock Moth Control, Portland Oregon, p. 9 (January 14, 1974)]

4. Years of carefully controlled feeding experiments involving levels of DDT as high as present in most wild birds resulted in no tremors, mortality, thinning of egg shells nor reproductive interference. [Scott, ML et al. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 350-368 (Egg production, hatch ability and shell quality depend on calcium, and are not effected by DDT and its metabolites)]

7. Egg shells of red-tailed hawks were reported to be six percent thicker during years of heavy DDT usage than just before DDT use began. Golden eagle egg shells were 5 percent thicker than those produced before DDT use. [Hickey, JJ and DW Anderson. 1968. Science 162: 271-273]

To the extent egg shell thinning occurred, many other substances and conditions could have been responsible.

17. Cutting illumination from 16 hours daily to 8 hours daily at the same time as DDT feeding began had no significant adverse effect on shell quality. Shell quality was only adversely impacted after large amounts of DDE were injected into birds. [Peakall, DB. 1970. Science 168:592-594]

18. DDT was blamed for egg shell thinning even though a known egg shell thinner (dieldrin) was also added to the diet. [Porter, RD and SN Wiemeyer. 1969. Science 165: 199-200]

19. No significant correlation between DDE and egg shell thinning in Canadian terns even though the eggs contained as much as 100 parts per million of DDE. [Switzer, BG et al. 1971. Can J Zool 49:69-73]

Neal Lang

STILL MORE FACT

VII. Bald eagles – DDT was blamed for the decline in the bald eagle population.

5. No significant correlation between DDE residues and shell thickness was reported in a large series of bald eagle eggs. [Postupalsky, S. 1971. (DDE residues and shell thickness). Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript, April 8, 1971]

8. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed large doses of DDT to captive bald eagles for 112 days and concluded that “DDT residues encountered by eagles in the environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs.” [Stickel, L. 1966. Bald eagle-pesticide relationships. Trans 31st N Amer Wildlife Conference, pp.190-200]

9. Wildlife authorities attributed bald eagle population reductions to a “widespread loss of suitable habitat”, but noted that “illegal shooting continues to be the leading cause of direct mortality in both adult and immature bald eagles.” [Anon.. 1978. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Tech Bull 3:8-9]

10. Every bald eagle found dead in the U.S., between 1961-1977 (266 birds) was analyzed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists who reported no adverse effects caused by DDT or its residues. [Reichel, WL. 1969. (Pesticide residues in 45 bald eagles found dad in the U.S. 1964-1965). Pesticides Monitoring J 3(3)142-144; Belisle, AA. 1972. (Pesticide residues and PCBs and mercury, in bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1969-1970). Pesticides Monitoring J 6(3): 133-138; Cromartie, E. 1974. (Organochlorine pesticides and PCBs in 37 bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1971-1972). Pesticides Monitoring J 9:11-14; Coon, NC. 1970. (Causes of bald eagle mortality in the US 1960-1065). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 6:72-76]

12. Shooting, power line electrocution, collisions in flight and poisoning from eating ducks containing lead shot were ranked by the National Wildlife Federation as late as 1984 as the leading causes of eagle deaths. [Anon. 1984. National Wildlife Federation publication. (Eagle deaths)]

Neal Lang

STILL MORE FACT

VIII. Peregrine falcons – DDT was blamed for the decline in the peregrine falcon population.

1. The decline in the U.S. peregrine falcon population occurred long before the DDT years. [Hickey JJ. 1942. (Only 170 pairs of peregrines in eastern U.S. in 1940) Auk 59:176; Hickey JJ. 1971 Testimony at DDT hearings before EPA hearing examiner. (350 pre- DDT peregrines claimed in eastern U.S., with 28 of the females sterile); and Beebe FL. 1971. The Myth of the Vanishing Peregrine Falcon: A study in manipulation of public and official attitudes. Canadian Raptor Society Publication, 31 pages]

2. Peregrine falcons were deemed undesirable in the early 20th century. Dr. William Hornaday of the New York Zoological Society referred them as birds that “deserve death, but are so rare that we need not take them into account.” [Hornaday, WT. 1913. Our Vanishing Wild Life. New York Zoological Society, p. 226]

8. During the 1960’s, peregrines in northern Canada were “reproducing normally,” even though they contained 30 times more DDT, DDD, and DDE than the midwestern peregrines that were allegedly extirpated by those chemicals. [Enderson, JH and DD Berger. 1968. (Chlorinated hydrocarbons in peregrines from Northern Canada) Condor 70:170-178]

9. There was no decline in peregrine falcon pairs in Canada and Alaska between 1950 and 1967 despite the presence of DDT and DDE. [Fyfe, RW. 1959. Peregrine Falcon Populations, pp 101-114; and Fyfe, RW. 1968. Auk 85: 383-384]

10. The peregrine with the very highest DDT residue (2,435 parts per million) was found feeding three healthy young. [Enderson, JH. 1968. (Pesticide residues in Alaska and Yukon Territory) Auk 85: 683]

11. Shooting, egg collecting, falconry and disruption of nesting birds along the Yukon River and Colville River were reported to be the cause of the decline in peregrine falcon population. [Beebe, FL. 1971. The Myth of the Vanishing Peregrine Falcon: A study in manipulation of public and official attitudes. Canadian Raptor Society Publication, 31 pages; and Beebe, FL. 1975. Brit Columbia Provincial Museum Occas. Paper No. 17, pages 126-144]

12. The decline in British peregrine falcons ended by 1966, though DDT was as abundant as ever. The Federal Advisory Committee on Pesticides concluded “There is no close correlation between the declines in populations of predatory birds, particularly the peregrine falcon and the sparrow hawk, and the use of DDT.” [Wilson report. 1969. Review of Organochlorine pesticides in Britain. Report by the Advisory Committee on toxic chemicals. Department of Education and Science]

13. During 1940-1945, the British Air Ministry shot about 600 peregrines (half the pre-1939 level) to protect carrier pigeons.

2. Disappearance of the brown pelicans from Texas was attributed to fisherman and hunters. Gustafson AF. 1939. Conservation in the United States, Comstock Publ. Co., Ithaca, NY. (Repeated in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report No. 1, 1970)]

6. An epidemic of Newcastle disease resulted in millions of birds put to death to eradicate the disease. [United Press International. “Newcastle disease epidemic in California (April 1972)] The epidemic among U.S. birds was caused by the migration of sick pelicans along the Mexican coast. [Hofstad MC. 1972. Diseases of Poultry. Iowa State Univ. Press]

Neal Lang

STILL MORE FACT

X. Bird populations increase during DDT years – Widespread declines in bird populations during the DDT years is a myth.

1. In congressional testimony, Charles Wurster, a biologist for the Environmental Defense Fund, noted the abundance of birds during the DDT years, referring to “increasing numbers of pheasants, quail, doves, turkeys and other game species.” [Wurster, C.F. 1969 Congressional Record S4599, May 5, 1969]

3. Statistical analysis of the Audubon data bore out the perceived increases. [White-Stevens, R. 1972. Statistical analyses of Audubon Christmas bird censuses. Letter to New York Times, August 15, 1972]

4. The white-tailed kite, a raptor, was “in very real danger of complete extirpation in the U.S.” in 1935, but “by the 1960’s, a very great population increase and range expansion had become apparent in California and the breeding range had extended through the Central American countries.” [Eisenmann, E. 1971. Range expansion and population increase of the White-tailed kite. American Birds 25(3):529-535]

5. Great increases in most kinds of hawks during the DDT years were reported by the Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association (Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania). [Taylor, JW. Summaries of Hawk Mountain migrations of raptors, 1934 to 1970. In Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association Newsletters]

6. National forest studies from Wisconsin and Michigan reported an increase in nesting osprey productivity from 11 young in 1965 to 74 young in 1970. [U.S. Forest Service, Milwaukee. 1970. Annual report on osprey status in national forests in Wisconsin and Michigan]

9. Some birds multiplied so well during the DDT years that they became pests: 6 million blackbirds ruined Scotland Neck, North Carolina in 1970, polluting streams, depositing nine inches of droppings on the ground and killing the forest where they roosted at night. [Associated Press, March 18, 1970] 77 million blackbirds roosted within 50 miles of Ft. Campbell, KY increasing the risk of histoplasmosis in humans. [Louisville Courier-Journal, December 1975.] Ten million redwings were reported in a small area of northern Ohio. [Graham, F. 1971. Bye-bye blackbirds? Audubon Magazine, pp. 29-35, September] The Virginia Department of Agriculture stated, “We can no longer tolerate the damage caused by the redwing … 15 million tons of grain are destroyed annually enough to feed 90 million people.” [Bulletin of the Virginia Department of Agriculture, May 1967] The phenomena of increasing bird populations during the DDT years may be due, in part, to (1) fewer blood-sucking insects and reduced spread of avian diseases (avian malaria, rickettsial-pox, avian bronchitis, Newcastle disease, encephalitis, etc); (2) more seed and fruits available for birds to eat after plant-eating insects were decimated; and (3) Ingestion of DDT triggers hepatic enzymes that detoxify carcinogens such as aflatoxin.

Neal Lang

STILL MORE FACT

XI. Erroneous detection – Gas chromatography was universally used for pesticide analysis in the mid-1960’s. But it often failed to differentiate between DDT residues and other chemicals.

4. The coating of aluminum foil used to wrap specimens, formalin, and sodium sulfate may also have contained PCBs or oils that might have interfered with analyses. [Risebrough, RW. 1971. Presentation to International Symposium on Identification and Measurement of Environmental Pollutants, Ottawa, Canada, June 15, 1971]

Note: The information presented here has been largely drawn from materials compiled by J. Gordon Edwards, professor of entomology at San Jose State University. Dr. Edwards testified at the 1971-1972 EPA hearings on DDT. Some research and all editing/formatting was done by Steven J. Milloy, publisher of junkscience.com.

What is obvious is that you Enviro-terrorists can’t handle either the TRUTH or the FACTS! BTW, “Wind Power Windmills” will probably killed more birds than DDT ever did. The REAL Inconvenient Truth is that you Enviro-terrorist Junk Science has probably killed more innocents than Adolf Hitler !

wallamaarif

Neal,

You know, your long list of “FACTS” might be more convincing if it was (a) sourced, and (b) not followed with the clearly unhinged/ungrammatical statement: “The REAL Inconvenient Truth is that you Enviro-terrorist Junk Science has probably killed more innocents than Adolf Hitler !”

I took a few seconds and looked up your source: it’s Steven Milloy, more known for making groundless claims that just happen to serve the interests of Cato’s donors than for contributing clear, thoughtful arguments to the debate. Not that I expected anything less from a guy who takes one short comment and proceeds to quote no one in particular at exhausting length.

Oh, and by the way: if I ever meet you in person, Neal Lang, and you utter the phrase, “Enviro-Terrorists,” I will personally kick the shit out of you (just as you deserve to have your jaw handed to you by a Jew for your casual Nazi references). You dishonor those who have spent years of their lives fighting real, bona-fide terrorists when you use that word to describe whoever you happen to disagree with that day.

wallamaarif

“If his weekly columns weren’t routinely devoted to exactly these arguments, you might have a point. As for rehashing in general, this review centers on Sowell’s ‘conflict of visions’ argument, which Sowell has been making continuously since at least 1987, when his book ‘A Conflict of Visions’ was first published.”

Your point exacty what? Consistency is somehow a sin and not a virture? Amazing rationale!

No, genius, I was pointing out that this review’s claim that Sowell doesn’t “rehash” old material is odd, considering the fact that Sowell is saying exactly the same thing he wqas saying two decades ago, as confirmed by this review. The only evidence I can see from any of the reviews I’ve read is that Sowell hasn’t added anything significant to his body of work with this book.

Consistency is neither a sin nor a virtue, unless it’s consistency in the face of evidence against the position you hold. Then it’s the abandonment of thought for the comfort of ideology.

Which is exactly what Sowell did many, many years ago.

Neal Lang

“Oh, and by the way: if I ever meet you in person, Neal Lang, and you utter the phrase, ‘Enviro-Terrorists,’ I will personally kick the shit out of you (just as you deserve to have your jaw handed to you by a Jew for your casual Nazi references). You dishonor those who have spent years of their lives fighting real, bona-fide terrorists when you use that word to describe whoever you happen to disagree with that day.”

Spoken like a true terroist! My reference was true – you enviro-terrorists have killed more African innocents witjh you illogical and unscientific ban of DDT than Hilter killed innocents. As for your “personally kicking the shit out of me” – be careful what you ask for as it it just might happen, and you will have your ass handed to you.

I note that your answer to my well-sourced facts including the World Health Organization, National Academy of Sciences, Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, American Medical Assn, US Agency for International Development, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, New England Journal of Medicine, Canadian Raptor Society Publication, Canadian Raptor Society Publication, Audubon Society, U.S. Forest Service, Congressional Record, Virginia Department of Agriculture, to name only a few, is to revert to violence like a true “Enviro-terrorist.” I would give you my address so that we might get together and have a meeting of the minds, so to speak, but based on your obvious lack of self-control you just might send me a “mail bomb” like any typical Enviro-terrorist.

BTW, interestingly your reaction to the truth seems to be violence. As such, you fit the definition of an Enviro-terrorist quite well. I suggest you get the facts and get back on meds before attempting debate points about which you obviously lack any scientific knowledge and merely rely totally on the propaganda of the “Culture of Death.”

Please have a nice day!

Neal Lang

“No, genius, I was pointing out that this review’s claim that Sowell doesn’t ‘rehash’ old material is odd, considering the fact that Sowell is saying exactly the same thing he wqas saying two decades ago, as confirmed by this review. The only evidence I can see from any of the reviews I’ve read is that Sowell hasn’t added anything significant to his body of work with this book.”

Thanks for the compliment but I do not claim to be a genius. No, I merely read the facts and form a logical conclusion based on the data. Unfortunately, because lemmings like you rely on the New Times Book Review, instead of reading an an author’s works yourself, Thomas Sowell, who is a real genius must keep trying to get your attention. Of course, you will not allow mere facts to cloud your “Culture of Death” worldview, so I can safely say in your case the brilliant Dr. Sowell is wasting his time, as you are definitiely unteachable.

“Consistency is neither a sin nor a virtue, unless it’s consistency in the face of evidence against the position you hold. Then it’s the abandonment of thought for the comfort of ideology.”

In your case, “the evidence” solidly supports Dr. Sowell’s position, however, you are obviously too brainwashed and ideological to see that. Instead you prefer to do violence rather than spoil you delusions with the truth!

“Which is exactly what Sowell did many, many years ago.”

And you are ideologically free? You seem to prefer violence to thought and knowledge, and death to the innocent on you Altar to Gaia to a Culture of Life that puts the right of poor Africans to live second to your misconceived ideology of a Utopian World that never existed, and that can and will never exist. Your ideology forces you to come down on the side of birds, although the evidence does not support the contention that they are harms by the use of DDT, to the sure truth that banning DDT has contributed to the death of 10s of millions of innocent African, mostly kids. Shame on you!

wallamaarif

Ah, yes, I disagree with you (and question the validity of your sources) so I must be a “lemming.” A bit of background: I was a National Director for Young Americans for Freedom in my early twenties, before I worked for six years in counter-terrorism for DoD. I’ve read three of Sowell’s books, but I never found him especially insightful even when I agreed with his conclusions completely.

You are so blinded by your ideology that you believe that just because someone observes that a pesticide that kills off the birds who eat the insects has a net negative effect on the ecosystem (you know, the other animals and plants), they are a Gaia-worshiping druid. That just makes you sound like a jackass, because I’m willing to bet you’ve met scores of environmentally-conscious people who don’t fit into that category. (If you haven’t, you need to re-integrate with society, because we’re everywhere.) Yet you casually fling such accusations into the blogosphere.

I assume you call yourself a Christian. (For the record, I don’t, but I was raised and homeschooled in a house that featured Pat Robertson on the TV every morning.) What would Jesus say to one who knowingly makes a false accusation? What would he say to someone who is so blind to nuance that they believe everyone who opposes them politically is a Communist, Nazi, Pagan, Terrorist-Sympathizer, “Culture of Death” supporter or worse?

You’ve allowed ideoology to make you into something ugly, unthinking and spiteful. (And yes, I know I said I’d kick your ass if I ever met you, but that’s because I’ve met more actual terrorists than you could possibly imagine. I’m guessing you were nowhere near lower Manhattan on 9/11, nor have you spent any time getting shot at in the Middle East, as I have. So yeah, I know it’s wrong, but I’d still kick your ass for calling me or any other normal person a “terrorist.” What can I say, I’m flawed.)

codamoda

I think wallamaarif has got this one… simply since Neal Lang’s commenting behavior is extreme, rude, and absolute. Why did you bring Hitler into this??? Seriously, Neal Lang’s behavior is as fanatical as the “eco-terrorists” he is demonizing.

That being said, I find Thomas Sowell’s arguments to be interesting, although I always feel that he is only bringing forth arguments that support his worldview, and ignores anything that contradicts.

I assume Sowell considers himself constrained…

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com Ed Darrell

Neal said:

5. Great increases in most kinds of hawks during the DDT years were reported by the Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association (Hawk Mountain, Pennsylvania). [Taylor, JW. Summaries of Hawk Mountain migrations of raptors, 1934 to 1970. In Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association Newsletters]

Somebody actually claimed that? I checked the Hawk Mountain website, and I found nothing close to that. So I called them, and asked for a copy of the 1970 newsletter, which is usually cited as the one that mentions increases in hawks.

“The decline of certain raptorial birds is causing profound concern among ornithologists and conservationists. For various reasons, this falloff in breeding success is not always reflected immediately in — and definitely not in direct ratio to — migration figures at Hawk Mountain. Accordingly, we have felt an urgent need to bring the endangered [illegible in my copy] of the hawks and eagles to all our members.”

Neal? There is nothing in the newsletter that hints at increasing numbers of hawks nationally, nor in most places. In fact, report after report decries the astonishing and shocking declines of hawks of all sorts, and of all raptors.

You didn’t read that newsletter, did you, Neal? Who gave you that bald-faced lie? And why should we trust anything else from you?